There are a lot of arguments re: America being incapable of having good railways that I dismiss more or less out of hand, and one I don't...
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
...specifically, the argument I will always heed is "ridership will not cover the cost of operations."
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
My suspicion is that ridership can cover costs in certain cities--even small ones--if the railways are built and operated sensibly...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...but that most of the country doesn't have a viable market for it. There are two further points here...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...one is that existing systems require drastic overhauls in order to actually get ridership up and operating costs down.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
The second is that there are places *not* currently served by rail transit which could support it through ridership, if it were built.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
I don't know that it'll take off again without heavy freight, the infrastructure build and upkeep is much higher. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4116836/Two-friends-living-Newcastle-Birmingham-met-Malaga-cheaper-fly-SPAIN-getting-train-other.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This story went around a while ago--what it shows is problems with UK's erratic pricing for tickets, not inherent costs in train travel
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.